liifi  i' 

!|lili!i|li!!li||i||l;filil|5l(:|;ll!i!l!^ 


flilliilllf^ 


y'.  /-o .  oz_ 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    bT^ro^  ~B7B.V^^C^r^\<2^Va  ,~I).T, 

Division ."^rTr..Tr"^>«....<» 

Seciion  .  .  P^  .  f  / 


(^i^-f-y^^cJ^ 


AN  ANSWER 


TO 


DR.  BRIG6S'  "SHORTEST  CATECHISM 


~s:^ 


'■  -u. 


THE   DETROIT   FREE   PRESS, 

May  27th,  1891. 


"THE  SHORTEST  CATECHISM." 


Great  interest  has  been  awakened  In 
church  circles  f?enerally  by  the  publication 
of  what  is  now  known  as  Dr.  Briggs'  cate- 
chism which  his  friends  lioped  would  be 
accejited  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  a 
substitute  for  the  larger  and  shorter  cate- 
chisms of  the  Westminster  (J^^andards. 
Dr.  Briggs'  answers  to  this  shortest  cate- 
chism have  been  urged  by  his  friends  as  a 
reason  wliy  the  general  assembly,  now  in 
session,  should  defer  action  and  not  veto  his 
election  as  a  professor  in  Union  Seminary. 
The  following  review  of  Dr.  Briggs' 
answers  to  this  catechism  has  been  furnished 
to  Thk  Fi;ek  Prkss  by  Mr.  John  J.  Mc- 
Cook,  an  elder  in  the  Fifth  Avenue  Church, 
New  York  (Dr.  .John  Hall,  pastor),  a  com- 
missioner from  the  presbytery  of  New  York 
to  the  general  assembly  : 

Dr.    IJiijij>C|(  atecliisin. 

The  Ne\vYork  Tribune  of  May  20  (it  also 
appears  inXjie  Evangelist  of  May  21)  con- 
tained a  brief  catechism  which  the  directoi-s 
of  Union  Seminary  laid,  it  seems,  before 
Dr.  Briggs,  and  with  his  answers  to  which 
they  report  that  they  listened  with  satis- 
faction. This  catechism  does  not  touch  up- 
on many  matters  as  to  which  the  Presbyter- 
ian Church  would  like  to  be  iufoi-med  more 
exactly  of  Dr.  Briggs'  opiniorj:  it  is  there- 
fore deficient,  considered  as  a  reply  to  the 
objections  that  have  been  raised  as  to  his 
teachings.  It  is  more  important  to  observe, 
however,  that  in  the  matters  upon  which  it 
does  teaohpi  the  catechism  does  not  raise  fhe 
real  issues  under  discussion  but  rather  ob- 
tains answers  to  questions  not  at  all  or   lit- 


tle in  dispute.  Tlie  object  of  tliis  brief  paper 
is  to  point  out  how  the  questions  might 
have  been  framed  so  as  to  give  the  church 
some  information  on  the  pointfat  issue. 
For  this  purpose  let  us  iiass  in  review  the 
questions  that  were  asked  and  note  how  far 
each  question  really  touches  upon  matters 
at  issue  and  what  answers  Dr.  Briggs  would 
have  given  on  the  real  issues,  had  the  com- 
mittee of  the  directors  been  so  kind  as  tO 
place  tliem  before  him. 

QUESTION  FIKST.    A. 

"Do  you  consider  the  Bible,  the  Church 
and  the  Reason  as  co-ordinate  sources  of 
authority.  Answer— Xo."  What  Dr.  Briggs 
here  denies  is  that  he  nuikes  these  three 
sources  co-oi'dinate  in  the  seu.se  of  co-equal ; 
he  does  not  deny  that  he  makes  each  of 
them  an  iHcZcpcHf/oit  source  of  knowledge 
of  God,  by  which^apart  from  or  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  others,  we  may  savingly  find 
God.  But  this  latter  is  the  real  matter  at 
issue.  Hence  the  question  needs  modifica- 
tion, thus : 

Question  as  it  Ought  to  be  Asked.— 
"Do  you  teach  that  men  may  obtain  that 
knowledge  of  God  which  is  necessary  for 
their  salvation  and  find  God  savingly,  by 
the  Reason  independently  of  and  apart  from 
the  revelation  of  God  given  in  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  therefore  that  the  revelation  of 
God  given  in  His  written  Word  is  not  neces- 
sary to  salvation?" 

Dk.  Briggs'  Axswkh  to  This  Question*.— 
"Martineau  could  not  find  Divine  authority 
in  the  Church  or  tlie  Bible,  but  he  did  find 
God  enthroned  in  his  own  soul.    There  are 


C^y 


2 


those  who  would  refuse  these  rationalists 
a  place  in  the  company  of  the  faithful. 
But  they  forget  that  the  essential  thing  is 
to  find  God  ^JJ^Divine  certainty.  '■  *  '" 
(Inaugural  <Bp5ress,  p.  r27.)  "Men  are  in- 
fluenced by  their  temperaments  and  en- 
vironments which  of  the  ways  of  access  to 
Grod  they  may  pursue."  Clbid..  p.  38.)  "If  it 
be  heresy  to  say  that  rationalists  like 
Martineau  have  found  God  in  the  reason 
and  Roman  Catholics  like  Newman  have 
found  God  in  the  churchy  I  rejoice  in 
.such  hei'esy,  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that 
I  have  less  doubt  of  the  salvation  of  Martin- 
eau or  Newman  than  I  have  of  the  modern 
Pharisees  who  would  exclude  such  noble 
men — so  pure,  so  grand,  the  ornaments  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  prophets  of  tlie  age — 
from  the  kingdom  of  God."— i^^ew  York 
HeialU,  May  15,  1891^ 

"Unless  God's  authority  is  discerned  in 
the  forms  of  the  Reason,  there  is  no  ground 
upon  which  any  of  the  heathen  could  e  ver 
have  been  saved,  for  they  know  nothing  of 
the  Bible  or  Church.  If  they  are  not  saving- 
ly enlightened  by  the  Ught  of  the  world  in 
the  forms  of  the  Reason,  the  wholelieatheu 
world  is  lost  forever." — yuaugui-al  address. 
2nd  ed.,  pp.  88-89^ 

QUESTION  FIRST.  B. 
"Do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  only  iufalli- 
ble  rule  of  faith  and  practice:^  Answer, 
yes."  Here  Dr.  Briggs  merely  affirms  that 
there  are  no  other  rules  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice to  which  the  epithet  "infallible"  can  be 
applied  except  the  Scriptures.  But  he  does 
not  affirm  that  there  are  no  other  sufficient 
rules  of  faith  and  practice  by  which  men 
may  be  led  to  salvation.  Nor  does  he  point 
out  in  what  sense  and  to  what  degree  the 
term  "infallible"  is  applied  to  Scripture. 
In  other  word.s,  the  (questions  at  issue  are 
not  here  determined.  The  (juestion  needs 
amending  so  as  to  read  thus : 

Question  as  it  Ought  to  be  Asked— "Do 
you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  to  be  the  only  extant  rev- 


elation of  that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  His 
will  which  is  necessary  to  salvation;  and 
therefore  the  only  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and 
practice?" 

Dr.  Briggs'  Answer  to  This  Question— 
"Another  means  used  by  God  to  make  Him- 
self known  is  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  using 
Reason  in  a  broad  sense  to  embrace  the  meta- 
physical categories,  the  conscience  and  the 
religious  feeling.  Here  i«i- the  Holy  of 
Holies  of  human  nature,  God  presents  Him- 
•self  to  those  who  seek  Him.  There  are  few 
who  are  able  to  rise  by  reflection  into  the 
higher  consciousne.ss  of  God.  Such  men 
have  appeared  in  all  ages  of  the  world.— 
(inaugm^rtlgddress^  p   -?J6.J 


"If  they  are  not  .savingly  enlightened  by 
the  light  of  the  world   in  the  forms  of  the 
Reason,  the  wliole  hciitlien  world  is  lost  iox- 
ever."- 6iKuigiival^d(lres.s^>(1  ed.  p.  80. 
[See  also  answers  to  question  1,  A.] 

QUE.STION  SEC(3XD. 
"When  you  use  the  term  'The  Reason,'  do 
you  include  the  conscience  and  the  religious 
feeling?  Ans.— Ye.s.  '  In  his  answer  to 
this  question  Dr.  Briggs  merely  aflirms  that 
when  he  says  men  find  God  savingly 
through  tlie  Reason,  he  intends  to  include 
all  purely  natural  faculties  and  means 
under  that  term,  and  to  refer  to  all  sources 
of  the  theistic  inference  and  of  the  religious 
feeling.  But  this  is  not  at  all  the  question 
at  issue ;  which  concerns  not  whether  'reas- 
on" isH*«#rth  a  broad  or  nai-row  sense,  buT 
whether  man  by  'reason'  alone  in  however 
broad  a  sense,  can  .so  'find  God'  as  to  be 
saveil.  The  question  needs  restatement, 
thus : 

Question  as  it  Ought  to  Have  Been 
Asked— "When  you  speak  of  men  'finding 
God'  through  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  in 
however  broad  a  sense,  do  you  mean  merely 
that  they  thus  obtain  some  knowledge  of 
God,  or  do  you  mean  that  they  may  obtain 
such  a  knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  umiii^ 
as  is  sufficient  unto  salvation?  ** 

Dr.  Briggs'  Answer  to  this  Question 
— "If  they  are  not  savingly  enlightened  by 


zc 


hsc<s' 


the  jjght  of  the  world  in  the  formfof  the 
Reason,  Uie  wholeTieathen  world  is  lost  for- 
." — ^nauguralyfddress,  2nd  ed.,  p.  89. 


ever.' — ^i  naugural/iddress,  2nd  ed.,  p.  89.7 
"Martineau  could  not  find  God  in  the 
church  or  in  the  Bible,  but  he  did  find  God 
enthroned  in  his  own  so\il."  •'■  *  *  "If  it 
be  heresy  to  say  that  rationalists  like 
Martineau  have  found  God  in  the  rea- 
son. *  '  '•  I  rejoice  in  such  heresy, 
and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  I  have  less 
doubt  of  the  salvation  of  Martineau  ••■  ■■■  * 
than  I  have  of  the  modern  Pharisees  who 
would    exclude    such     noble     men     ■■  * 

from  the  Kingdom  of    God."— finaugural 
Address,  p, 
11,  1891.) 


of  all   the 


i^f^i  ^iJir<^^^ 


the  old  and  new  Testa- 


r,  and  New  York  Herald,   May 

(See  also  above  in  answer  to  question  1.) 

QUESTION  THIRD. 

"Would  you  accept  the  following  as  a  sat- 
isfactory definition  of  inspiration  •'  'Inspir- 
ation ix  such  a  divine  direction  as  to  secure 
an  infallible  record  of  Ood's  revelations 
in  resjject  to  both  faith  and  doctrine.' 
Answer,  yes."  Here  the  question  is  so 
framed  as  to  confine  the  affirmative  reply  to 
an  affirmation  of  such  divine  direction  as 
secured  an  infallible  record  of  God's  "revel- 
ations" only;V"not  necessarily  of  all  God's 
revelations,  but  only  of  those  "in  respect  to 
faith  and  doctrine."  Nothing  is  affirmed  of 
the  inspiration  of  the  record  of  God's  revela- 
tions as  to  matters  of  fact.  Nothing  is  af- 
firmed as  to  the  inspiration  of  such  parts  of 
the  Scriptures  as  are  not  "records  of  God's 
revelations."  And  no  definition  is  given  o^ 
"infallible  record,"  even  as  so  limited,  tih 
other  words,  the  real  issues  that 
have  been  raised  are  not  here  raised 
and  a  useless  question  is  asked. 
It  needs  to  be  amended  somewhat  as  fol- 
lows ; 

Question  Th.vt  Ought  to  Be  Asked— 
"Would  you  accept  the  following  as  a  .satis- 
factory definition  of  inspiration?  'Inspira- 
tion is  such  a  special  and  extraordinary, 
and  immediate  iilllt-diviue  superintendence 
of  the  whole  process  of  the  writing  of  the 
scriptures  as  constitutes  tlieni,   consisting 


ment,uiuajiti©*«»**/by  inspiration  of  God  Jthe 
Word  of  God   written,  which   he  has  com- 


mitted wholly  to  writing,  and  which  ought, 
therefore,  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  be- 
cause God  (who  is  truth  itself)  is  the  author 
thereof.'  ^«*A,^-i»-   ." 

Dr.  Briggs'  Answer  to  This  Wiv*  "The 
time  has  come  when  the  .shibboleth  of  the 
older  apqlogeWc^^  'The  Bible  is  the  Word  of 
God,' flnrr  against  'The  Bible  iontains  the 
Word  of  God.'  {mmL  should  be  abandoned.'" 
"Hence  the  author  is  correct  in  his  state- 
ment :  *  *  ■'■  'But  in  the  higher  and 
more  distinctively  religious  meaning  of  the 
word,  it  is  not  the  Biblical  books  through- 
out— it  is  only  the  Word  of  God  which  is  in 
the  Biblical  books— that  can  be  spoken  of  as 
inspired'  (p.  87'2.)  Whatever  does  not  be- 
long to  that  divine  organism  is  purely 
formal  and  circumstantial  and  not  inspired. 
How  shall  this  living  divine  organism  of 
truth  be  discriminateil  from  its  formal  en- 
velope^;^^ 

■^^^'he  (ib)i(A<itc  divine  truth  in  the  Bible 
must  be  discriminated  from  the  relative 
truths  in  which  it  is  enveloped,  or  in  other 
words,  the  divine  suljstance  has  been  given 
in  human  forms,  and  no  one  will  truly  under- 
stand the  Bible  until  he  has  learned  to  dis- 
tinguish between  this  temporal,  circumstan- 
tial and  variable  form,  and  the  eternal,  es- 
sential and  permanent  sub-stance. "<^resby- 
terian  Review.  1884,  pp.  :58I,  384,  ;585j'  "We 
cannot,  in  the  symbolical  or  historical  use 
of  the  term,  call  this  providential  care  of 
His  Word,  or  superintendence  over  its  exter- 
nal protection— inspiration.  Such  provideii^  . 
dial  care  and  superintendence  is  onli/dift'er- 
ent  in  kind  with  regard  to  the  Word  of  (^od. 
the  visible  churcli  of  God,  or  the  power  of 
the  Sacraments."  (iMblical  Study,  p.  ItH.j) 
"These  errors  are  all  in  the  circumstantials 
and  not  in  the  essentials;  they  are  in  the 
human  setting  and  not  in  the  precious  jewel 
itself;  they  are  found  in  that  section  of  the 
Bible  thattheologianscommonly  account  for 
from  the  providential  sui)erintendence  of  the 


mind  m»the  author,  as  distinguished  from 
divine  revelation  itself.  It  may  be  that  this 
providential  superintendence  gives  infalli- 
ble guidance  in  every  particular;  and  it 
may  be  that  it  diflEers  but  little,  if  at  all. 
from  the  providential  superintendence  of 
the  fathers  and  schoolmen  and  theologians 
of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  not  impor- 
tant for  the  present  purpose  that  we  should 
decide  the  question.  If  we  should  abandon 
the  whole  field  of  providential  superintend- 
ence so  far  as  inspiration  and  divine  au- 
thority are  concerned  and  limit  divine  in- 
spiration and  authority  to  the  essential  con- 
tents of  the  Bible,  to  its  religion,  faith  and 
morals,  we  should  still  have  ample  room  to 
seek  divine  authority  where  alone  it  is  es- 
sential, or  even  important,  in  the  teaching 
that  guides  our  devotions,  our  thinking 
and  our  conduct.'' — Hnaugural  Address,  pp. 
35-36.  *JI    - 

"It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  divine  in- 
spiration lifted  the  author  above  his  age  any 
more  than  was  necessary  to  convey  the  di- 
vine declaration  and  the  divine  instruction 
with  infallible  certainty  to  mankind,  ^is^ 
fcquestion  of  credulity  is  to  be  distinguished 
/from  infallibilty.  The  form  is  credible, 
the  substance  alone  is  infallible. '  '—f  Whith- 
er, p.  T2.  I 
^^         J     QUESTION  BX)UKTH. 

"Do  you  believe  the  Bible  inerraut  in  all 
matters  concerning  faith  and  practice,  and 
in  everything  in  which  it  is  a  revelation 
from  God  or  a  vehicle  of  divine  truth,  and 
that  there  are  no  errors  that  disturb  its  infal- 
libility in  these  matters,  or  in  its  record  of 
the  historic  events  and  institutions  with 
which  they  are  inseperably  connected? 
Answer — Yes.'"  This  question  is  so  framed 
as  to  confine  the  affirmation  of  inerrancy  to 
the  substance   of  faith  and  practice,  to  the 

*What  Dr.  Briggs  expresses  with  an  "if"  in 
the  Tpa.i]g^iriil  Arlfirp^f^hf^  asscrts  as  fact  in  the 
PrtfshyteVian  Reviey".  as  above  quoted,  teaching 
that  inspiration  does  not  extand  to  anything  be- 
yond the  ^-u/j.s((r  act',  and  abandoning  it  for  the 
whole  of  what  he  calls  fonnal  atid  circumxtan- 
tial,  i.  e.,  apparently  for  the  whole  form  of  Scrip- 
ture as  distinguished  from  its  contents. 


communication  of  direct  revelation  from 
Gofl,  and  to  such  historic  events  and  institu- 
tioiK  as  are  inseperably  conneeted  with 
these  matters.  Errors  are  not  denied  to 
existieven  in  that  element  of  the  Bible  that 
delivers  doctrine  and  regulatior  5  for  life ; 
but  only  such  errors  as  would  (  isturh  its 
InfaUfhility  in  these  matters  of  ^m*  when 
dealt  with  so  as  to  separate  the  absolute 
kernel  u-om  the  relative  husk,  as  outlined 
in  the  passages  quoted  above  under  ques- 
tion threV.  Errors  further,  are  not  denied 
to  exist  \in  Biblical  history;  but  only 
in  the  recoids  of  tJiose  historic  events  and 
iiistitutionk  tvhich  (in  Dr.  Briggs'  judg- 
ment) are  ffSiwoinUy  connected  with  the  sub- 
stance of  divine  truth  as  to  faith  and  prac- 
tice. This  does  not  bring  out  the  question 
at  issue.  The  question  should  rather  have 
been  framed  thus : 

Question  as  it  Ought  to  Have  Been 
Asked — "Do  you  believe  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, consisting  of  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  to  be  (as  the  Word  of 
God,  Who  is  truth  itself,  the  author  there- 
of) of  infallible  truth  in  all  its  affirma- 
tions, so  as  that,  as  a  Christian  man,  you 
believe  to  be  true  whatsoever  is  delivered 
therein,  for  the  authority  of  God  himself 
speaking  therein!-'" 

Dk.  Briggs'  Answei:  to  This  Question— 
"It  is  sheer  assumption  to  claim  that  the 
original  documents  were  inerrant.  No  one 
can  be  persuaded  to  believe  in  the  inerrancy 
of  scripture,  except  by  a  priori  considera- 
tions from  the  elaboration  of  the  doctrine 
of  verbal  inspiration."— {\\liith£j;  p.  68.  1 

"The  doctrine  of  the  inerrancy  of  Scrip- 
ture is  in  conflict  with  biblical  criticism.  It 
seems  to  me  that  no  candid  mind  without 
invincible  dogmatic  prepossessions  can 
doubt  that  there  is  an  error  of  citation  in 
Matt,  xxvii.,  9, that  goes  back  to  the  original 
autographs.  The  question  of  credibility  is 
to  be  distinguished  from  infallibility.  The 
form  is  credible,  the  substance  alone  is  in- 
fallible."—(\Xhjther,  pp.  Tl.T'i.  "^ 

"I  shall  venture  to  affirm  that,  so  far  as  I 


vl.'^  I 


can  see,  there  are  errors  in  the  Scriptures 
that  no  one  has  been  able  to  explain  away, 
and  the  theory  that  they  were  not  in  the 
original  text  is  sheer  assumption,  upon 
which  no  mind  can  rest  with  certainty.  If 
such  errors  destroy  the  authority  of  the 
Bible,  it  is  already  destroyed  for  historians. " 
— ^Inaugural/^dress,  p.  3.5.^ 

"In  Dibiical  Study  and  Whitherl 
limited  myself  to  two  errors  of  citation.  I 
have  not  taken  a  brief  to  prove  the  errancy 
of  Scripture.  Conservative  men  should 
hesitate  before  they  force  the  critics  in  self- 
defense  to  make  a  catalogue  of  errors  in  the 
Bible."— /inaugural^ddress,  2d  ed.,  p.  95.  ) 
QUESTION  FIFTH. 

"Do  you  believe  that  the  miracles  recorded 
in  Scripture  are  due  to  an  extraordinary 
exercise  of  divine  energy,  either  directly  or 
indirectly  through  holy  men?  Answer — 
Yes."  The  question  is  so  phrased  as  that 
the  answer  affirms  nothing  more  than  that 
God  is  somehow  (directly  or  indirectly)  con- 
cerned in  the  production  of  miracles*  and 
that  thej-  are  not  every-day  phenomena. 
But  these  are  not  the  questions  at  issue. 
The  question  should  have  been  framed  thus : 

Question  as  it  Ought  to  Have  Been 
Asked — 'Do  you  believe  that  the  miracles 
recorded  in  Scripture  are  wrought  by  the 
immediate  power  of  God  and  so  clearly  ex- 
hibit the  presence  of  God  with  the  messen- 
ger in  whose  authentication  they  are 
wrought,  as  that  though  we  believe  not  )|im 
we  must  believe  the  works,  though  we  be- 
lieve not  the  words  spoken  we  must  believe 
for  the  very  works'  sake?' 

Dk.  Briggs'  Answer  to  this  Question— 
"If  it  were  possible  to  resolve  all  the 
miracles  of  the  Old  Testanient  into  extra- 
ordinaiy  acts  of  Divine  Providence,  using 
the  forces  and  forms  of  nature  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  nature ;  and  if  we  could 
explain  all  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  His 
unique  authority  over  man  and  over  nature, 
from  His  use  of  mind* cure,  or  hypnotism, 
or  any  other  occult  power — still  I  claim  that 
nothing  essential  would  be  lost  from    the 


miracles  of  the  Bible;  they  would  still 
remain  the  most  wonderful  exhibition 
of  loving  purpose  and  redemptive  acts  of 
God  and  of  the  tenderness  and  grace  of  the 
Messiah's  heart."  (Inaugural ^ddress,  p. 
37.)  '-' 

"The  study  of  the  miracles  of  the  Bible 
has  convinced  me  that  they  may  be  explained 
from  the  presence  of  God  in  nature  in  varied 
forms  of  Theophany  and  Christophany, 
for  when  God  is  present  we  may  expect 
manifestations  of  divine  authority  and 
power," — (Do.,  p.  38.  ) 

QUESTION  SIXTH. 

"Do  you  hold  what  is  commonly  known 
as  the  doctrine  of  a  future  probation  ?  Do 
you  believe  in  purgatory?  Answer-r-No  (to 
both)."  The  question  is  so  framed  as  not  to 
raise  the  questions  at  issue.  Dr.  Briggs  is 
understood  tohold  the  Augustinian doctrine 
of  the  fall,  and  that,  therefore,  mankind  had 
its  sole  probation,  properly  so  called,  in 
Adam  :  man  has,  therefore,  no  true  proba- 
tion in  this  life  and,  accordingly,  no  future 
probation  in  the  next  life.  And  as  he  does 
not  teach  "what  is  commonly  known"  as 
the  doctrine  of  a  "future  probation,"  so 
neither  is  he  charged  with  teaching  the  his- 
torical doctrine  of  "purgatory."  To  bring 
out  the  matters  at  issue,  the  questions 
should  have  been  framed  thus : 

Questions  as  They  Ought  to  Have  Been 
Asked — "A.  Do  you  hold  that  all  the  con- 
scious operations  of  grace  may  be  undergone 
after  death,  in  the  intermediate  state?  B. 
Do  you  believe  that  saved  souls  may  enter 
the  intermediate  state  unprepared  for  Heav- 
en and  needing  an  extended  period  of  prep- 
aration to  fit  them  for  it?" 
Di;.  BRKiGs'  Answers  to  These  Questions. 
—"Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology  is  in 
its  limitation  of  the  process^  of  redemption 
to  this  world  and  its  neglect  of  those  vast 
periods  of  time  which  have  elapsed  for  most 
men  in  the  middle  state  between  death  and 
the    resurrection.  ■■    We    look    witli 

hope  and  joy  for  the  continuation  of  the 
processes  of  grace,  as  the  wonders  of  re- 


6 


demption  in  the  company  of  the  blessed, 
to  which  the  faithful  are  all  hastening." 
[[lnau°:ural^dress,  page  55.^  "There  is  no 
salvation  without  personal  faith.  *  *  * 
There  is  but  one  way  of  salvation  for  all, 
one  ordo  salutis.  There  is  but  one  kind  of 
ju.stification,  one  kind  of  sanctification,  one 
kind  of  saving  faith,  and  one  kind  of  re- 
pentance unto  life.  *  '  '"  It  is  not  dif- 
ficult to  understand  that  the  Divine  Spirit 
may  regenerate  all  the  elect  in  th#  world 
and  plant  within  them  the  seeds  of  faith 
and  repentance,  so  tliat  redemption  may 
have  its  beginning  here  for  infants 
and      incapables.     •■  •    The      salvation 

which  is  begun  here  by  regeneration 
is  carried  on  there.  For  the  vast 
majority  of  our  race  who  die  in  infancy  or 
have  lived  beyond  the  range  of  tlie  means 
of  grace,  th^  salvation  begun  in  this  life 
by  regeneration  is  carried  on  in  the  inter- 
mediate state  witli  the  exercise  of  personal 
faith  in  Christ,  whom  they  know  there  for 
tlie  first.  *  "•■"  ■•■"  Not  till  then  are  they 
justified,  for  there  can  be  no  justification 
witliout  faith  for  them  any  more  than  for 
others.  The  intermediate  state  is  for  them 
a  state  of  blessed  possibilities  of  redemp- 
tion. ' '— iMagazine  of  Christian  Literature, 
December,  1880,  pp.  110,  IIL^ 

"The  doctrine  of  immediate  justification 
and  sanctification  at  death  involves  the  con- 
ceit that  the  child  who  died  in  infancy  a 
few  moments  after  birth  is  immediately 
justified  and  sanctified,  receives  saving 
faith  and  all  the  Christian  graces  in  an  in- 
stant. *  '■  •  If  this  were  so,  then  blessed 
are  those  who  die  in  infancy  and  thus  out- 
strip their  fellows  in  the  Christian  race. 
Vastly  better  to  be  born  to  die  than  to  be 
l)orn  to  live  in  this  uncertain  world.  What 
parent  would  not  prefer  to  lay  all  his  cliil- 
dren  in  an  early  grave  assui'ed  of  their  sal- 
vation than  expose  them  to  the  dreadful 
risks  of  life  and  tlie  possibility  of  eternal 
damnation!'  According  to  the  current  be- 
liefs those  Chinese  mothers  who  put  their 
children    to   death  make   more   Christians 


than  all  the  missionaries."— ^Inaugural  Ad- 
_dress,  second  edition,  p.  105.^  ^ 

B.  "The  intermediate  state  is,  therefore, 
for  all  believers,  without  exception,  a  state 
for  their  sanctification.  They  are  there 
trained  in  the  school  of  Christ,  and  are  pre- 
pared for  the  Christian  perfection  which 
they  must  attain  ere  the  judgment  day." 
jMagazine  of  Christian  TiiteraturPj^necenn- 
ber,  1889,  p.  112. J  "The  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine  of  purgatory  is  a  perversion  of  the 
true  doctrine.  '■  *  •■  There  is  much  truth 
and  some  comfort  in  the  midst  of  its  errors. 
■X-  *  j^^  jg  jggg  mechanical  and  less  un- 
ethical than  the  theory  that  has  prevailed 
among  Protestants  that  there  is  both  im- 
mediate justification  and  immediate  sanc- 
tification in  tlie  article  of  death."  ^o.,  p. 
113.1  "Sanctification  has  two  sides — morti- 
fication and  vivication.  '■'  ■  ■  It  is  the 
work  of  sanctification  to  overcome 
sin  in  the  higher  nature.  We  may 
justly  hold  that  the  evil  which 
begins  in  the  higher  moral  nature  of  be- 
lievers will  be  suppressed  and  modified, 
with  an  energy  of  repentance,  humiliation, 
confession  and  determination  that  will  be 
more  powerful  than  ever  before,  because  it 
will  be  stimulated  by  the  presence  of  Christ 
and  the  saints.  If  it  were  possible  that 
sanctification  at  death  would  make  men  so 
perfect  in  holiness  as  to  remove  all  evil  ten- 
dencies and  habits  and  not  only  destroy 
their  disposition  to  sin,  etc."— {Do.  p.  114. 1 
QUESTION  SEVENTH. 

"Do  you  believe  that  the  issues  of  this  life 
are  final,  and  that  a  man  who  dies  *H(^rii- 
tent  will  have  no  further  opportunity  of 
salvation?  Answer — Yes.  '  This  question 
was  worth  asking  and  appears  to  bring  out 
a  fact  of  importance  in  Dr.  Briggs'  teacli- 
ing.  We  rejoice  to  believe  that  Dr.  Briggs 
has  thus  cleared  his  skirts  of  one  of  the 
charges  brought  against  him.  We  under- 
stand liim  to  teach  that  the  final  destiny  of 
all  men  is  already  determined  in  this  life; 
that  regeneration  takes  place  invariably  be- 
fore death  and  that  accordingly  the  great 


gulf  fixed  between  the  saved  and  lost  is  in 
the  next  life  impassable. 

QUESTION  EIGHTH. 
"Is  your  theory  of  progressive  .sauctifica- 
tion  such  as  will  permit  you  to  say  that  you 
believe  that  when  a  man  dies  in  the  faith, 
he  enters  the  middle  state  regenerated,  jus- 
tified and  sinless  ?N  Answer— '^ Yes."  "Such 
an  will  jwrmit  you  to  sa]r—''f^hen  a 
man  dies  in  the  faith"— "rcricnerated,  justi- 
fied, and  siuless''"  All  these  are  limiting  and 
undefined  clauses  which  destroy  the  useful- 
ness of  this  question.  Prof.  Briggs  will  no 
doubt  affirm  of  a  man  dyiiKj  a  hclicver  that 
he  is  already'./i(sf7"./!('t/  and  in  that  sense  im- 
putalively  six/fss.  lie  does  not  affirm  here 
that  the  terms  employed  are  the  natural 
ones  to  express  his  theory  as  to  the  middle 
state ;  or  that  he  is  permitted  by  his  theory 
to  say  of  (dl  the  saved  that  they  enter  the 
middle  state  "regenerated,  justified  and 
sinless?"  or  that  his^^tUeoi-y  will  per- 
mit him  to  say  of  hiTu,  a  man  who 
"dies  in  the  faith,"  that  he  enter  the  middle 
state  "sinless"  in  any  other  than  the  impu- 
tative sense.  For  Dr.  Briggs  uses  the  term 
"sinless"  in  this  sense  :  "Believers,"  he  says, 
( Magazine  of  Christian  Ijiterature,  Decem- 
ber, 188!),  p.  114),  "who  enter  the  middle 
state,  enter  sinless^''  and  this  he  immedi- 
ately defines  as  follows:  "They  are  par- 
doned and  justified*  they  are  mantled  in  the 
blood  and  righteousness  of  Christ;  and 
nothing  will  be  able  to  .sepai-ate  them  from 
His  love.  ■•■  *  *  But  they  are  still  the 
same  persons,  with  all  the  gifts  and  graces, 
and  also  all  tin:  coil  Itabits  of  the  mind,  dis- 
position and  temper  they  had  when  they 
left  the  world."  Accordingly,  he  substitutes 
"guiltless"  for  "sinless"  in  the  enlarged 
statement  given  in  the  appendix  to  his  in- 
amjiiral  address.  The  question  therefore 
fails  to  raise  the  question  at  issue.  The 
question  should  take  the  following  form  : 


Question  AS  IT  Should  be  Asked:  "Is 
your  theory  of  progressive  sanctification  such 
as  is  consistent  with  the  affirmation  that  all 
those  who  are  to  be  saved  enter  the  middle 
state  cleansed  from  all  pollution  of  sin,  with 
all  evil  tendencies  and  dispositions  removed, 
and  in  such  a  sense  perfect  in  holiness,  as 
that  remainders  of  sin  no  longer  cling  to 
them? 

Dr.  Brkjgs'  Answer  to  This  Que.stiox. 
— "Believers  who  enter  the  middle  state. 
*  *  *  are  .still  the  same  persons,  with  all  the 
gifts  and  graces,  and  also  the  evil  habits  of 
mind,  dispositions  and  temper  they  had 
when  they  left  the  world.  It  is  unpsycho- 
logical  to  suppose  that  these  will  be  changed 
in  the  moment  of  death.  It  is  the  mani- 
chean  heresy  to  hold  that  sin  belongs  to 
the  physical  organization,  and  is  laid  aside 
with  the  body.  ■  ■  The  Plymouth  Jjrethren 
hold  that  there  are  two  natures  iir  the  re- 
deemed, the  old  man  and  the  new.  In  ac- 
cordance with  such  a  theory  the  old  man 
might  be  cast  off  at  death.  Sin.  as  our 
Savior  teaches,  has  its  source  in  the 
heart,  in  the  higher  and  immortal 
part  of  man.  It  is  the  intent  of  sanctifica- 
tion to  overcome  sin  in  the  higher  nature. 
We  may  justly  hold  that  the  evil  that  still 
lingers  in  the  higher  moral  nature  of  be- 
lievers will  be  suppressed  and  modified  with 
an  energy  of  repentance,  confession  and 
determination  that  will  be  more  powerful 
than  ever  before  because  it  will  be  stimu- 
lated by  the  presence  of  Christ  and  His 
saints,  etc." — CVIagazine  of  Christian  Liter- 
ature, December,  1889,  page  114.^ 

This  brief  catechism  we  repeat  cannot 
settle  all  questions.  But  so  far  as  it  goes 
it  seems  to  bring  the  truth  of  Dr.  Briggs' 
teaching  before  us.  These  things  cannot  be 
explained  away.  They  must  be  retracted  or 
ahidcd  by. 


"THE  SHORTEST  CATECHISM." 


Great  interest  has  been  awakened  in  church  circles  generally 
by  the  publication  of  what  is  known  as  Dr.  Briggs'  catechism,  which 
some  of  his  friends  hoped  would  be  accepted  by  the  Presbyterian 
Church  as  a  substitute  for  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the 
Westminster  Standards,  Dr.  Briggs'  answers  to  this  shortest  cate- 
chism have  been  urged  by  his  friends  as  a  reason  why  the  General 
Assembly,  now  in  sessioUj  should  defer  action  and  not  veto  his  elec- 
tion as  a  professor  in  Union  Seminary,  The  following  review  of  Dr, 
Briggs'  answers  to  this  catechism  has  been  furnished  to  The  Free 
Press  by  Mr.  John  J.  McCook,  an  elder  in  the  Fifth  Avenue  Church, 
New  York  (Dr.  John  Hall,  pastor),  a  commissioner  from  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York  to  the  General.  Assembly,* 

Dr.  Briggs'  Catechism. 

The  New  York  Tribune  of  May  20  (it  also  appears  in  The  Evan- 
gelist of  May  21)  contained  a  brief  catechism  which  the  Directors  of 
Union  Seminary  laid,  it  seems,  before  Dr.  Briggs,  and  with  his 
answers  t^  which  they  report  that  they  listened  .with  satisfaction. 
This  catechism  does  not  touch  upoa  many  matters  as  to  which  the 
Presbyterian  Church  would  like  to  be  informed  mpre  exactly  of  Dr. 
Briggs'  opinions  ;  it  is  therefore  deficient,  considered  as  a  reply  to  the 
objections  that  have  been  raised  as  to  his  teachings.  It  is  more  mi- 
-  ^ 

[*  The  subjoined  paper  was  written  by  ^rofessor  Warficid  on  May  21st,  and  placed  in  the 
hands  of  a  friend  for  his  personal  information,  but  with  liberty  "  to  make  whatever  use  of  it  he 
chose."  In  the  exercise  of  this  liberty,  and  in  the  desire  not  to  commit.PVof.  Warficid  without  con- 
sultation with  him,  it  was  printed  anonymously  in  The  Detroit  Free  PYrss  of  May  27th.  On  the 
issue  of  this  reprint,  Prof.  Warfield  h.-is  expressed  a  desire  to  have  the  anonymousness  removed, 
•     as  he  has  no  unwillingness  to  assume  th^  responsibility  of  the  entire  contents  of  the  paper.] 


^   J^\ 


1  \,    ■         ' 


portant  to  observe,  however,  that,  hi  the  matters  upon  which  it  does 
touch,  the  catechism  does  not  raise  the  real  issues  under  discussion, 
but  rather  obtains  answers  to  questions  not  at  all  or  little  in  dispute. 
The  object  of  this  brief  paper  is  to  point  out  how  the  questions 
might  have  been  framed  so  as  to  give  the  church  information 
on  the  points  at  issue.  For  this  purpose  let  us  pass  in  review  the 
questions  that  were  asked  and  -note  how  far  each  question  really 
touches  upon  matters  at  issue  and  what  answers  Dr.  Briggs  would 
have  given  on  the  real  issues,  had  the  Committee  of  the  Directors 
been  so  kind  as  to  place  them  before  him. 

QUESTION  firs;.     A. 

"  Do  you  consider  the  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason  as  co-or- 
dinate sources  of  authority  ?  Answer — No."  What  Dr,  Briggs  here 
denies  is  that  he  makes  these  three  sources  co-ordinate  in  the  sense 
of  co-equal ;  he  does  not  deny  that  he  makes  each  of  them  an  inde- 
pendent source  of  knowledge  of  God,  by  which  apart  from  or  in 
opposition  to  the  others,  we  may  savingly  find  God.  But  this  latter 
is  the  real  matter  at  issue.  Hence  the  question  needs  modification, 
thus : 

Question  as  it  Ought  to  be  Asked. — "  Do  you  teach  that 
men  may  obtain  that  knowledge  of  God  which  is  necessary  for  their 
salvation  and  find  God  savingly,  by  the  Reason  independently  of  and 
apart  from  the  revelation  of  God  given  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  there- 
fore that  the  revelation  of  God  given  in  His  written  Word  is  not 
necessary  to  salvation  ? " 

Dr.  Briggs'  Answer  to  this  Question. — "  Martineau  could  not 
find  divine  authority  in  i,he  Church  or  the  Bible,  but  he  did  find 
God  enthroned  in  his  own  soul.  There  are  those  who  would  refuse 
these  Rationalists  a  place  in  the  company  of  the  faithful.  But  they 
forget  that  the  essential  thing  is  to  find  God  and  divine  certainty. 
*  *  *"  {Inaugural  Address,  p.  27.)  "Men  are  influenced  by 
their  temperaments  and  environments  which  of  the  three  ways  of 
access  to  God  they  may  pursue."  {Ibid.,  p.  28.)  "  If  it  be  heresy  to* 
say  that  rationalists  like  Martineau  have  found  God  in  the  reason, 
and  Roman  Catholics  like  Newman  have  found  God  in  the  church, 
I  rejoice  in  such  hcr<-sy,  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  I  have  less 
doubt  of  the  salva.Ion  of  Martineau  o'  Newman  than  I  have  of  '•he 


s 


-modem  pharisees  who  would  exclude  such  noble  men — so  pure,  M 
^and,  the  ornaments  of  Great  Britain  and  the  prophets  of  the  age 
. — from  the  kingdom  of  God" — (JVew  York  Herald,  May  ii,  1891), 
"  Unless  God's  authority  is  discerned  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason, 
there  is  no  ground  upon  which  any  of  the  heathen  could  ever  have 
been  saved,  for  they  know  nothing  of  the  Bible  or  Church.  If  they 
are  not  savingly  enlightened  by  the  Light  of  the  World  in  the  forms 
of  the  Reason  the  whole  heathen  world  is  lost  forever.'' — {Inaug- 
ural Address,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  88-^891,^ 

QUESTION  FIRST,  B. 

"  Or  do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
•to  be  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  Answer — Yes." 
Here  Dr.  Briggs  merely  affirms  that  there  are  no  other  rules  of  faith 
and  practice  to  which  the  epithet " jrf allible"  can  be  applied  besides  the 
Scriptures.  But  he  does  not  amrm  that  '-.nere  are  no  other  sufficient 
rules  of  faith  and  practice  by  which  men  may  be  led  to  salvation. 
Nor  does  he  point  out  in  what  sense  and  to  what  degree  the  term 
"  infallible  "  is  applicable  to  Scriplure.  In  other  words,  the  questions 
at  issue  are  not  here  determined.  The  question  needs  amending  so 
as  to  read  thus  : 

Question  as  it  vJUGht  to  be  asked, — "  Do  you  believe  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  only  extant 
revelation  of  that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  will  which  is  neces- 
sary to  salvation;  .--.nd  therefore  the  only  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  ?  " 

Dr.  Briggs'  ...nswer  to  this  Question. — "Another  means  used 
toy  God  tc  make  Himself  known  is  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  using 
Reason  in  a  broad  sense  to  embrace  the  metaphysical  categories, 
the  conscience  and  the  religious  feeling.  Here,  in  the  Holy  of  Holies 
•of  Human  nature,  God  presents  Himself  to  those  who  seek  Him. 
*  *  *  There  are  few  who  are  able  to  rise  by  reflection  into  the 
higher  consciousness  of  God.  *  *  *  Such  men  have  appeared 
in  all  ages  of  the  world," — {Inaugural  Address,  p.  26.)  "  If  they 
are  not  savingly  enlightened  by  the  Light  of  the  World  in  the 
forms  of  the  Reason  the  whole  heathen  world  is  lost  forever." — 
{Inaugural  Address,  2d  ed.,  p.  89.) 

[See  also  answers  to  Question  i,  A.] 


Iclon  thvz  ohvlz: 


QUESTION  SECOND. 

"When  you  use  the  term  'Reason,*  do  you  include  the  conscience 

and  the  religious  feeling  ?  Ans. — Yes."  In  his  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion Dr.  Briggs  merely  affirms  that  when  he  says  men  find  God  savingly 
through  the  Reason,  he  intends  to  include  all  purely  natural  facul- 
ties and  means  under  that  term,  and  to  refer  to  all  sources  of  the 
theistic  inference  and  of  the  religious  feeling.  But  this  is  not  at  all 
the  question  at  issue;  which  concerns  not  whether  '  reason'  is  used 
in  a  broad  or  narrow  sense,  but  whether  man  by  *  reason '  alone  in 
however  broad  a  sense,  can  so  '  find  God  '  as-  tc  be  saved.  The 
question  needs  restatement,  thus  ; 

Question  as  it  Ought  to  Have  Been  Asked. — "  When  you 
speak  of  men  'finding  God'  through  the  forms  of  the  Reason, 
in  however  broad  a  sense,  do  you  mean  merely  that  they  thus  obtain 
some  knowledge  of  God,  or  do  you  mean  that  they  may  thus  obtain 
such  a  knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  will  as  is  sufficient  unto  salva- 
tion?" 

Dr.  Briggs'  Answer  to  this  Question. — "  If  they  are  not  sav- 
ingly enlightened  by  the  Light  of  the  World  in  the  forms  of  the 
Reason  the  whole  heathen  world  is  lost  forever.  ' — {Inaugural 
Address,  2d  ed.,  p.  89.)  "  Martineau  could  not  find  divine  authority 
in  the  Church  or  in  the  Bible,  but  he  did  find  God  enthroned  in. 
his  own  soul."  *  *  *  "  If  it  be  heresy  tc  say  that  rationalists 
like  Martineau  have  found  God  in  the  reason  *  *  *  i  rejoice 
in  such  heresy,  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  I  have  less  doubt 
of  the  salvation  of  Martineau  *  *  *  than  I  have  of  the  modern 
pharisees  who  would  exclude  such  noblt  men  *  *  *  from  the 
Kingdom  of  God." — [Inaugural  Address,  p.  27,  and  JVew  York 
Herald,  May  11,  1891.) 

(See  also  above  in  answer  to  Question  i.) 

QUESTION  THIRD. 

"  Would  you  accept  the  following  as  a  satisfactory  definition  of 
Inspiration?  *  Inspiration  is  such  a  divine  direction  as  to  secure  an 
infallible  record  of  God's  revelation  in  respect  to  both  fact  and  doc- 
trine.'' Answer — Yes."  Here  the  question  is  so  framed  as  to  confine 
the  affirmative  reply  to  an  affirmation  of  such  divine  direction 
as  secured  an  infallible  record  of  God's   "  revelation  "  only ;    not 


-^Bl>, 


"necessarily  of  all  God's  revelations,  but  only  of  those  "  in  respect  to 
both  fact  and  doctrine."  Nothing  is  affirmed  as  to  the  inspiration 
of  such  parts  of  the  Scriptures  as  are  not  a  "  record  of  God's  reve- 
lation." And  no  definition  is  given  of  "  infallible  record,"  even  as 
so  limited.  In  other  words,  the  real  issues  that  have  been  raised 
are  not  here  raised,  and  a  useless  question  is  asked.  It  needs  to  be 
amended  somewhat  as  follows  : 

Question  That  Ought  to  Be  Asked. — "  Would  you  accept  the 
following  as  a  satisfactory  definition  of  inspiration  ?  *  Inspiration  is 
such  a  special  and  extraordinary  and  immediate  divine  superintend- 
ence of  the  whole  process  of  the  writing  of  the  Scriptures  as  consti- 
tutes them,  consisting  of  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment (as  given  by  inspiration  of  God)  the  Word  of  God  written, 
which  he  has  committed  wholly  to  writing,  and  which  ought,  there- 
fore, to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  because  God  (who  is  truth  itself) 
is  the  author  thereof.'  " 

Dr.  Briggs'  Answer  to  This  Question. — "  The  time  has  come 
when  the  shibboleth  of  the  older  apologetic,  *  The  Bible  is  the  Word 
of  God,'  over  against '  The  Bible  contains  the  Word  of  God,'  should 
be  abandoned.'  'Hence  the  author  is  correct  in  his  statement  : 
*  *  *  « g^(■  jjj  |-}^g  higher  and  more  distinctively  religious  meaning 
of  the  word,  it  is  not  the  biblical  books  throughout, — it  is  only  the 
Word  of  God  which  is  in  the  Biblical  books,— that  can  be  spoken  of 
as  inspired'  (p.  372).  Whatever  does  not  belong  to  that  divine 
organism  is  purely  formal  and  circumstantial  and  not  inspired.  How 
then  shall  this  living  divine  organism  of  truth  be  discriminated  from 
Its  formal  envelope  ?"  "  The  absolute  divine  truth  in  the  Bible  must 
be  discriminated  from  the  relative  truths  in  which  it  is  enveloped, 
or,  in  other  words,  the  divine  substance  has  been  given  in  human 
forms,  and  no  one  will  truly  understand  the  Bible  until  he  has 
learned  to  distinguish  between  this  temporal,  circumstantial,  and 
variable  form,  and  the  eternal,  essential,  and  permanent  substance." 
{Presbyterian  Review,  1S84,  pp.  381,  384,  385).  "  We  cannot,  in  the 
symbolical  or  historical  use  of  the  term  call  this  providential  care 
of  His  Word  or  superintendence  over  its  external  production — 
inspiration.  Such  providential  care  and  superintendence  is  not  differ- 
ent in  kind  with  regard  to  the  Word  of  God,  the  visible  church  of 
God,  or  the   forms  of  the  sacraments."     {^Biblical  Study,  p.  i6i.) 


"  These  errors  are  all  in  the  circumstantials  and  not  in  the  essen- 
tials ;  they  are  in  the  human  setting,  not  in  the  precious  jewel 
itself  ;  they  are  found  in  that  section  of  the  Bible  that  theologians 
commonly  account  for  from  the  providential  superintendence  of  the 
mind  of  the  author,  as  distinguished  from  divine  revelation  itself. 
It  maybe  that  this  providential  superintendence  gives  infallible 
guidance  in  every  particular ;  and  it  may  be  that  it  differs  but  little, 
if  at  all,  from  the  providential  superintendence  of  the  fathers  and 
schoolmen  and  theologians  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  not  im- 
portant for  the  present  purpose  that  we  should  decide  this  question. 
If  we  should  abandon  the  whole  field  of  providential  superintend- 
ence so  far  as  inspiration  and  divine  authority  are  concerned  and 
limit  divine  inspiration  and  authority  to  the  essential  contents  of  the 
Bible,  to  its  religion,  faith,  and  morals,  we  would  still  have  ample 
room  to  seek  divine  authority  where  alone  it  is  essential,  or  even 
important,  in  the  teaching  that  guides  our  devotions,  our  thinking, 
and  our  conduct," — [Inaugural  Address,  pp.  35-36*.)  ''It  is  not 
to  be  presumed  that  divine  inspiration  lifted  the  author  above  his 
age  any  more  than  was  necessary  tc  convey  the  divine  declaration 
and  the  divine  instruction  with  infallible  certainty  to  mankind.  The 
question  of  credibility  is  to  be  distinguished  from  infallibihty.  The 
form  is  credible,  the  substance  alone  is  infallible."  {Whither  i, 
p.  72.) 

QUESTION  FOURTH. 

"  Do  you  believe  the  Bible  to  be  aierrart  r ;...  all  matters  concerning 
faith  and  practice  and  in  everything  ir  which  it  is  t  revelation  fromi 
God,  or  a  vehicle  of  divine  truth  anJ  that  there  are  no  errors  that 
disturb  its  infallibility  in  these  matters  0.;  in  its  records  of  the  his- 
toric events  and  institutions  with  whicli  they  are  inseparably  con- 
nected? Answer. — Yes.'"  This  question  is  so  framed  as  to  confine 
the  affirmation  of  inerrancy  tc  the  substance  of  faith  and  practice,  to 
the  communication  of  direct  revelation  from  God,  and  to  such  historic- 
events  and  institutions  as  are  inseparably  connected  with  these  mat- 


*  Wiiat  Dr.  Briggs  expresses  with  an  "if"  in  the  Tnaugiiral  Address  he  asserts  as  fact  in 
the  Fresbytcriar.  Review,  as  above  quoted,  leaching  that  inspiration  does  not  extend  to  anything 
beyond  the  substance,  and  abandoning  it  for  the  whole  of  what  he  calls  formal  and  circumstan- 
tial, i.  e.,  apparently  for  the  whole /orw  of  Scripture  a*  disting,uished  from  its  contents. 


ters.  Errors  are  not  denied  to  exist  even  in  that  element  of  the  Bible 
'that  delivers  doctrine  and  regulations  for  life  ;  but  only  such  errors 
as  would  disturb  its  infallibility  in  these  matters,  of  course,  when  dealt 
with  so  as  to  separate  the  absolute  kernel  from  the  relative  husk,  as 
outlined  in  the  passages  quoted  above  under  Question  three.  Errors 
further,  are  not  denied  to  exist  in  the  Biblical  history ;  but  only  in  the 
records  of  those  historic  events  and  institutions  which  (in  Dr.  Briggs' 
judgment)  are  inseparably  connected  with  the  substance  of  divine  truth 
as  to  faith  and  practice.  This  does  not  bring  out  the  question  at 
issue.     The  question  should  rather  have  been  framed  thus  : 

Question  as  n  Ought  to  Have  Been  Asked. — "Do  you 
believe  the  Holy  Scripture,  consisting  of  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  to  be  (as  the  Word  of  God,  who  is  truth  itself, 
the  author  thereof)  of  infallible  truth  in  all  its  affirmations,  sO  as 
that,  as  a  Christian  man,  you  believe  to  be  true  whatsoever  is 
delivered  therein,  for  the  authority  of  God  himself  speakiiig  there- 
in?" 

Dr.  Briggs'  Answer  to  this  Question. — "  It  is  sheer  assump- 
tion to  claim  that  the  original  documents  were  irierrant.  No  one 
can  be  persuaded  to  believe  in  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture,  except  by 
a  priori  considerations  from  the  elaboration  of  the  doctrine  of  verbal 
inspiration.''— ( Whither  ?,  p.  68.)  "  The  doctrine  6f  the  inerrancy  of 
Scripture  is  in  conflict  with  biblical  criticism.  It  seems  to  me 
that  no  candid  mind  without  invincible  dogmatic  prepossessions 
can  doubt  that  there  is  an  error  of  citation  in  Matt,  xxvii.,  9,  that 
goes  back  to  the  original  autographs.  The  question  of  credibility 
is  to  be  distinguished  from  infallibility.  The  form  is  credible,  the 
substance  alone  is  misAWble."— {Whither ?,^^.  71,  72.)  "I  shall 
venture  to  affirm  that,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  there  are  errors 
in  the  Scriptures  that  no  one  has  been  able  to  explain  away  ; 
and  the  theory  that  they  were  not  in  the  original  text  is  sheer 
assumption,  upon  which  no  mind  can  rest  with  certainty.  If  such 
errors  destroy  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  it  is  already  destroyed  for 
historians." — {Itiaugural  Address,  p.  35.)  "  In  Biblical  Study  and 
Whither  ?  I  limited  myself  to  two  errors  of  citation.  I  have  not 
taken  a  brief  to  prove  the  errancy  of  Scripture.  Conservative  men 
should  hesitate  before  they  force  the  critics  in  self-defense  to  make 
a  catalogue  of  errors  in  the  BM^.''  -  '  Inaugural  Address.,  2d  ed.,  p: 
95.) 


8 


QUESTION  FIFTH.  . 

•'  Do  you  believe  that  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  are 
due  to  an  extraordinary  exercise  of  divine  energy,  either  directly  or 
mediately  through  holy  men  ?  Answer — Yes."  The  question  is  so 
phrased  as  that  the  answer  affirms  nothing  more  than  that  G'od  is 
somehow  (directly  or  indirectly)  concerned  in  the  production  of 
miracles,  and  that  they  are  not  e very-day  phenomena.  But  these 
are  not  the  questions  at  issue.  The  question  should  have  been 
framed  thus  : 

Question  as  it  Ought  to  Have  Been  Asked. — "  Do  you  be- 
lieve that  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  were  wrought  by  the 
immediate  power  of  God,  and  so  clearly  exhibit  the  presence  of  God 
with  the  messenger  in  whose  authentication  they  were  wrought,  as 
that  though,  we  believe  not  him  we  must  believe  the  works,  though 
we  believe  not  the  words  spoken  we  must  believe  for  the  very  works' 
sake  ? " 

Dr.  Briggs'  Answer  to  this  Question. — "  If  it  were  possible 
to  resolve  all  the  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament  into  extraordinary 
acts  of  Divine  Providence,  using  the  forces  and  forms  of  nature  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  nature;  and  if  we  could  explain  all  the 
miracles  of  Jesus,  His  unique;  authority  over  man  and  over  nature, 
from  His  use  of  mind  cure,  or  hypnotism,  or  any  other  occult  power, 
—still  I  claim  that  nothing  essential  would  be  lost  from  the  miracles 
of  the  Bible;  they  would  still  remain  the  most  wonderful  exhibition 
of  loving  purpose  and  redemptive  acts  of  God  and  of  the  tenderness, 
and  grace  of  the  Messiah's  Yv^zxX^''— {Inaugural  Address^  p.  37.) 
"The  study  of  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  has  convinced  me  that 
they  may  be  explained  from  the  presence  of  God  in  nature,  in  varied : 
forms  of  Theophany  and  Christophany,  for  where  God  is  present  we 
may  expect  manifestations  of  divine  authority  and  power."— (Z><7., 

p.  38.) 

QUESTION  SIXTH. 

"  Do  you  hold  what  is  commonly  known  as  the  doctrine  of  a  future; 
probation  ?    Do  you  believe  in  purgatory  ?    Answer — No  (to  both).' 
The  question  is  so  framed  as  not  to  raise  the  questions  at  issue. 
Dr.  Briggs  is  understood  to  hold  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  the 
fall,  and 'that,  therefore,  mankind  had  its  sole  probation,  properly  sc 


9 


called,  in  Adam;  man  has,  therefore,  no  true  probation  in  this  life 
and,  accordingly,  no  future  probation  in  the  next  life.  And  as  he 
does  not  teach  "  what  is  commonly  known  "  as  the  doctrine  of  a 
'•future  probation,"  so  neither  is  he  charged  with  teaching  the  his- 
torical doctrine  of  "  purgatory,"  To  bring  out  the  matters  at  issue, 
the  questions  should  have  been  framed  thus  : 

Questions  as  they  Ought  to  Have  Been  Asked. — "  A.  Do 
you' hold  that  all  the  conscious  operations  of  grace  may  be  under- 
gone after  death,  in  the  intermediate  state  ?  B.  Do  you  believe 
that  saved  souls  may  enter  the  intermediate  state  unprepared  for 
Heaven,  and  needing  an  extended  period  of  preparation  to  fit  them 
for  it  ? " 

Dr.  Briggs'  Answers  to  These  Questions. — A.  "Another 
fault  of  Protestant  theology  is  in  its  limitation  of  the  process  of 
redemption  to  this  world,  and  its  neglect  of  those  vast  periods  of 
time  which  have  elapsed  for  most  men  in  the  Middle  State  between 
death  and  the  resurrection.  *  *  *  We  look  with  hope  and  joy 
for  the  continuation  of  the  processes  of  grace,  and  the  wonders  of 
redemption  in  the  company  of  the  blessed,  to  which  the  faithful  are 
all  hastening." — {Inaugural  Address^  page  53-54.)  "There  is  no 
salvation  without  personal  faith.  *  *  *  There  is  but  one  way  of 
salvation  for  all,  one  ordo  salutis.  There  is  but  one  kind  of  justifica- 
tion, one  kind  of  sanctification,  one  kind  of  saving  faith,  and  one 
kind  of  repentance  unto  life.  *  *  *  It  is  not  difficult  to  under- 
stand that  the  Divine  Spirit  may  regenerate  all  the  elect  in  this 
world,  and  plant  within  them  the  seeds  of  faith  and  repentance,  so 
that  redemption  may  have  its  beginning  here  for  infants  and  incap- 
ables.  *  *  *  xhe  salvation  which  is  begun  here  by  regeneration 
is  carried  on  there.  For  the  vast  majority  of  our  race  who  die  in 
infancy  or  have  lived  beyond  the  range  of  the  means  of  grace,  their 
salvation  begun  in  this  life  by  regeneration  is  carried  on  in  the  Inter- 
mediate State  with  the  exercise  of  personal  faith  in  Christ,  whom 
they  know  there  for  the  first.  *  *  *  Not  till  then  are  they 
justified,  for  there  can  be  no  justification  without  faith  for  them  any 
more  than  for  others.  The  Intermediate  State  is  for  them  a  state  of 
blessed  possibilities  of  redemption." — {Magazine  of  Christian  Litera- 
ture, December,  1889,  pp.  no,  in.)  "  The  doctrine  of  immediate 
justification  and  sanctification  at  death  involves  the  conceit  th'at 
the  child  who  dies  in   infancv  a  few  moments  after  birth  is  imme- 


10 


diately  justified  and  sanctified,  receives  saving  faith  and  all  the 
"  Christian  graces  in  an  instant.  *  *  *  j^f  this  were  so,  then 
blessed  are  those  who  die  in  infancy,  and  thus  outstrip  their  fellows 
in  the  Christian  race.  Vastly  better  to  be  born  to  die,  than  to.  be 
born  to  live  in  this  uncertain  world.  What  parent  would  not  prefer 
to  lay  all  his  children  in  an  early  grave,  assured  of  their  salvation, 
rather  than  expose  them  to  the  dreadful  risks  of  life  and  the  possi- 
bility of  eternal  damnation?  According  to  the  current  beliefs, 
those  Chinese  mothers  who  pu:  their  children  to  death  make  more 
Christians  than  all  the  raissionaries." — (Inaugural  Address^  second 
edition,  p.  105.) 

B.  "  The  Intermediate  State  is,  therefore,  for  all  believers,  without 
exception,  a  state  for  their  sanctificatiofi.  They  are  there  trained  in 
the  school  of  Christ,  and  are  prepared  for  the  Christian  perfection 
which  they  must  attain  ere  the  judgment  day.'' — (^Magazine  of  Chris- 
tian Literature,  December^  1889,  pv  112).  "■■  "^he  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine  of  purgatory  is  a  perversion  of  the  true  doctrine.  •'  *  * 
There  is  much  truth  and  some  comfort  in  the  midst  of  its  errors. 

*  *  *  It  is  less  mechanical  and  less  unethical  than  the  theory 
that  has  prevailed  among  Protestants  that  there  is  both  immedi- 
ate justification  and  immediate  sanctincation  in  the  article  of  death." 
{Do.,  p.  113).  "  Sanctification  has  two  sides — mortification  and 
vivificatidn.  *  i;  *  j^  jg  ^^g  work  of  sanctification  to  overcome 
sin  in  the  higher  nature.  We  may  justly  hold  that  the  evil  which 
lingers  in  the  higher  moral  nature  of  believers  will  be  suppressed;- 
and  modified,  with  an  energy  of  repentance,  humiliation,  confession 
and  determination  that  will  be  more  powerful  than  ever  before, 
because  it  will  be  stimulated  by  the  presence  of  Christ  and  the  saints. 

*  *  *  If  it  were  possible  that  sanctification  at  death  would  make 
men  so  perfect  in  holiness  as  to  remove  all  evil  tendencies  and 
habits,  and  not  only  destroy  their  disposition  to  sin,  but  so  lift  them 
above  temptation  that  they  would  be  not  only  like  our  Savior  during 
his  earthly  life,  posse  non  peccart,  but  also  like  our  Savior"  after  he. 
had  sanctified  himself  and  risen  victor  over  sin,  death,  and  Satan, 
and  attained  the  position  of  non  posse  peccarc  j  even  then  they  would 
only  have  accomplished  the  negative  side  of  sanctification,  the  mor- 
tification or  entire  putting  to  death  the  old  man  of  sin." — {Do.,. 
p.  114.) 


11 


QUESTION    SEVENTH. 

• 

"  Do  you  believe  that  the  issues  of  this  life  are  final,  and  that  a 
man  who  dies  impenitent  will  have  no  further  opportunity  of  salva- 
tion ?  Answer — Yes."  This  question  was  worth  asking  and 
appears  to  bring  out  a  fact  of  importance  in  Dr.  Briggs'  teaching. 
We  rejoice  to  believe  that  Dr.  Briggs  has  thus  cleared  his  skirts  of 
one  of  the  charges  brought  against  him.  We  understand  him  to 
teach  that  the  final  destiny  of  all  men  is  already  determined  in  this 
life  ;  that  regeneration  takes  place  invariably  before  death ;  and  that 
accordingly  the  great  gulf  fixed  between  the  saved  and  lost  is  in  the 
next  life  impassable. 

QUESTION  EIGHTH. 

"  Is  your  theory  of  progressive  sanctification  such  as  will  permit 
you  to  say  that  you  believe  that  when  a  man  dies  in  the  faith  he 
enters  the  middle  state  regenerated,  justified  and  sinless  ?  Answer — 
Yes."  "  Such  as  will  permit  you  to  say  " — "  when  a  man  dies  in  the 
faith  " — "  regenerated^  justified  and  sinless.''''  All  these  are  limiting 
and  undefined  clauses  which  destroy  the  usefulness  of  this  question. 
Prof.  Briggs  will  no  doubt  affirm  of  a  man  dying  a  believer  that  he 
is  already /W/Z/f^'d^  and  in  that  sense,  imputatively,  siriless.  He  does 
not  affirm  here  that  the  terms  employed  are  the  natural  ones  to 
express  his  theory  as  to  the  middle  state  ;  or  that  he  is  permitted  by 
his  theory  to  say  of  all  the  saved  that  they  enter  the  middle  state 
•"  regenerated,  justified  and  sinless  ;'i  or  that  his  theory  will  permit 
him  to  say  of  even  a  man  who  "  dies  in  the  faith,"  that  he  enters  the 
middle  state  "  sinless  "  in  any  other  than  the  imputative  sense.  For 
Dr.  Briggs  uses  the  term  "sinless  "  in  this  sense  :  "Believers,"  he 
says  {^Magazine  of  Christian  Literature,  December,  1889,  p.  114), 
"who  enter  the  Middle  State,  enter  j-/«/<?j-j- /'  and  this  he  immedi- 
ately defines  as  follows  :  "  They  are  pardoned  and  justified  ;  they 
are  mantled  in  the  blood  and  righteousness  of  Christ ;  and  nothing 
will  be  able  to  separate  them  from  his  love.  *  *  =1=  jj^t  (-[^gy 
are  still  the  same  persons,  with  all  the  gifts  and  graces  and  also  all 
the  evil  habits  of  mind,  disposition,  and  temper  they  had  when 
they  left  the  world."  Accordingly,  he  substitutes  "  guiltless  "  for 
**  sinless  "  in  the  enlarged  statement  given  in  the  appendix  to  his 
Inaugural  Address  (p.  107).     The  question,  therefore,  fails  to  raise 


12 


the  question    at   issue.     The  question   should    take  the  following 
form : 

Question  as  it  Should  be  Asked. — "  Is  your  theory  of  pro- 
gressive sanctification  such  as  is  consistent  with  the  affirmation  that 
all  those  who  are  to  be  saved  enter  the  middle  state  cleansed  from 
all  pollution  of  sin,  with  all  evil  tendencies  and  dispositions  removed, 
and  in  such  a  sense  perfect  in  holiness  as  that  remainders  of  sin 
no  longer  cling  to  them  ?  " 

Dr.  Briggs'  Answer  to  This  Question. — "  Believers  who  enter 
the  Middle  State  *  *  *  are  still  the  same  persons,  with  all  the 
gifts  and  graces  and  also  the  evil  habits  of  mind,  disposition,  and 
temper  they  had  when  they  left  the  world.  It  is  unpsychological  to 
suppose  that  these  will  all  be  changed  in  the  moment  of  death.  It  is 
the  Manichean  heresy  to  hold  that  sin  belongs  to  the  physical  organi- 
zation, and  is  laid  aside  with  the  body.  *  *  *  The  Plymouth 
Brethren  hold  that  there  are  two  natures  in  the  redeemed,  the  old 
man  and  the  new.  In  accordance  with  such  a  theory,  the  old  man 
might  be  cast  off  at  death.  *  *  *  gj^^  ^g  ^m-  Savior  teaches,  has 
its  source  in  the  heart,  in  the  higher  and  immortal  part  of  man.  It  is 
the  intent  of  sanctification  to  overcome  sin  in  the  higher  nature. 
We  may  justly  hold  that  the  evil  that  still  lingers  in  the  higher 
moral  nature  of  believers  will  be  suppressed  and  modified  with  an 
energy  of  repentance,  humiliation,  confession,  and  determination  that 
will  be  more  powerful  than  ever  before  because  it  will  be  stimulated  by 
the  presence  of  Christ  and  His  Saints,  etc." — {Magazine  of  Chris- 
tiati  Literature,  December,  1889,  page  114). 

This  brief  catechism  we  repeat  cannot  settle  all  questions.  But 
so  far  as  it  goes  it  seems  to  bring  the  truth  of  Dr.  Briggs'  teachipg 
before  us.  These  things  cannot  be  explained  away.  They  must  be 
retracted  or  abided  by. 


Date  Due 

- ,     '• 

O't^'i'^ 

Ui.. 

-  A  r>  i  '  ■ 

u 

V- 

'  ST 

V*  or    ''-j' 

■""^AiHX 

(|) 

i:!j'!i:;!;:(!!;r 


iiiiiiii 


